Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What kind of animal is this?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I really think all the evidence points to a raccoon..
That would be one small ass pig you got there though.. also the hands and feet don't match a pigs.
It's a dead raccoon. Decomposed and missing some upper teeth.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
They like conspiracy theories too much.. your talking to a brick wall.
I think we should call Skully and Mulder....this is a case for the X files.
That's what happens when you can't distinguish between reality and fantasy. I'll bet everyone whom cannot identify the image as a dead raccoon believes in some form of paranormal / theistical nonsense.
Please vote here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83786
On the video they are saying that scientists at Stony Brook University think that the animal is not raccoon, because the proportion of the arms and legs to the body is not consistent with that of raccoon. I would like to debunk this argument, but I don't know how.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
How is it not consistent ? Were they being specific ?
I don't exactly remember the wording but it was about some proportion not matching. There are three women who discovered it first and then took several photos. They said the animal is decomposing in someone's backyard. Their intention is to get scientists check what it is. It is in here:
http://hamptons.plumtv.com/node/7586#links
http://hamptons.plumtv.com/node/7586#links
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I am estimating the fly at 1 cm. It's 8 pixels in my image.
The head and body length is about 400 pixels, so that would be (400/8)*1 = 50 cm.
40 inch = 102 cm
(50/53)*100 = body length including tail = 94 cm
From the second picture I think we can determine that this was a male:
So the body length of the creature fits neatly within the range of a male raccoon.
The head and body length is about 400 pixels, so that would be (400/8)*1 = 50 cm.
26 inch = 66 cmhttp://www.und.nodak.edu/org/ndwild/raccoon.html said:
40 inch = 102 cm
Take average (42+52)/2 = 47%http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/vines/4892/raccoonskeleton.html said:
(50/53)*100 = body length including tail = 94 cm
http://www.und.nodak.edu/org/ndwild/raccoon.html said:
From the second picture I think we can determine that this was a male:
So the body length of the creature fits neatly within the range of a male raccoon.
Sciencelovah
Registered Senior Member
Enmos, do you know what is proportionality? Or composition?
Look at both pics below:
To me, the body proportion looks like a pig or a pitbull :shrug: Also:
Look at both pics below:
To me, the body proportion looks like a pig or a pitbull :shrug: Also:
- How many dead bodies are found actually? Are they the images of the same body?
- Do they need to flip the body to get different angle of the picture? The second one facing to the opposite side.
- Where is "the beak" in the second pic?
- Is it just the colour of the body that is different or the soil as well? Are they taken by different camera?
- Which one is older? Is it the blue one? It has more fur.
- Why is the ratio of the head to the body in the first pic looks smaller compared to the second pic? Or is it just me?
Last edited:
How many dead body are found actually? Are they the same images? Do they
need to flip the body to get different angle of the picture? Where is "the beak"
in the second pic? Is it just the colour of the body that is different or the soil
as well? Or is it just me?
well the 2nd one was taken later, the dead raccoon dried up...
Even in salt water?
It looks like a pig because the nose cartilage has rotted away.
And those are definitely not pig feet.
Sciencelovah
Registered Senior Member
If the 2nd one was taken later, why it has more fur than the first one?
If the 2nd one was taken earlier, why it has no beak as the first one?
Last edited: